I've got a question. I have been looking at live aboard vessels for a minute now and have come across several different hull materials used. Out of fiberglass, wood, steel, aluminum, ferro-cement, and composite, which would most suggest and why. For one reason or another, I have been focusing on fiberglass hulls and have no reason why. What might the masses suggest and again, why? Thanks.

We chose wood/epoxy/glass composite for our trimaran... but I assume you mean monohulls? If I were to switch to "the dark side", I would go for a shallow draft un-painted aluminumhull. This one is bilge keeled, but others have twin CBs. (like Ovni)

They are TOUGH... forgiving of collision, sit on the bottom "upright" on a disappearing tide, and you can be approached by a dugout canoe with no damage. The material doesn't get blisters, but in marinas, I'd watch things closely for galvanic corrosion. Otherwise, it helps avoid "that sinking feeling" if you see full size trees float right by, like I have.

Well, something like 99% of cruising boats are plastic -- which is not an accident. Because glass reinforced plastic is an incredibly good material -- noble, that is, non-reactive almost like gold, almost, lasts forever, strong, stable, relatively cheap, easy to shape. What's not to love?

Other materials also have their strong points and adherents. Steel, though it rusts, is very strong. Aluminum is less reactive than steel and is even stronger by weight. Both metals require a lot more care where corrosion is concerned, than plastic.

Wood -- beautiful, strong for its weight, traditional, beautiful, did I say BEAUTIFUL? An enormous job to keep up.

Ferro -- well, I'll leave it to someone else to come up with some advantages of that.

The thing that makes me laugh is that 95% of folk have never owned a wooden boat... just repeat an 'adage'... I've owned three... no more work than GRP...Its like that tale about Hunters and Ferro... lotta know nothings playing 'Little Sir Echo'....

The thing that makes me laugh is that 95% of folk have never owned a wooden boat... just repeat an 'adage'... I've owned three... no more work than GRP...Its like that tale about Hunters and Ferro... lotta know nothings playing 'Little Sir Echo'....

Would you agree that it depends on the boat?

Cause we have had 3, two of the damned things named after me! and they were nothing, in my experience, except wood wrapped around leaks and took a TON more time and money to maintain...

Cause we have had 3, two of the damned things named after me! and they were nothing, in my experience, except wood wrapped around leaks and took a TON more time and money to maintain...

And we DID maintain them... lord how we maintained 'em...

ROLF... the 1st boat I ever owned was wood.... it took me 18mths to get her together... and myself... bad bike accident...At the launch the 'Sages' said because she'd been on land for 5yrs (abandoned.. bought her of the yard for the price of the bills) she'd take a ton of water before she sealed/plimed up.... she did not take a drop....I'd primed the hull every evening with buckets of seawater hauled by hand after everyone had gone home...Learning the properties and how to deal with them makes life so much simpler....

The yard I worked in for a while specialized in blister repair, HUNDREDS per year. The peel, fair, glass, barrier coat jobs could easily run 20 to $30,000! This was also true of the high dollar brands, that were supposedly "resistant", and only 5 years old.

If it were possible with a NEW hull, #1... I'd try to get an ALL epoxy hull, OR I would barrier coat the bottom before launch at > twice the mills that the product suggest. It is not enough thickness, considering "holidays" & "sanded spots" over a lifetime of maintenance. Then I would keep a dusty dry bilge for the life of the boat. EVEN if I had to build an epoxy glassed sump around & under the engine, shaft log, and mast base!

Until you have done a three month (all day, every day) blister repair, It is hard to imagine what a pain this can be.

Fiberglass has a remarkable lifespan, and the old, THICK (= slow) versions are relatively impact resistant, BUT not like Aluminum. In Europe, it is a popular choice, not an "also ran" like here.

"Longevity" of fiberglass reinforced plastic was unknown for a VERY long time, and has absolutely nothing to do with it's popularity in the US as a building material. The material's popularity & universal acceptance was totally about profit! A fiberglass hull can be built in days or a couple of weeks. This makes for a lot more profit and lower cost in the end, which in turn, sells more boats.

Other than the potential for blisters, (which can be minimized as I pointed out)... and the fact that they can break "like glass" in a collision, (worked on LOTS of them), it is OK for most folks. For serious cruisers that are willing to pay more, and want a boat that can actually have the bow CAVED IN, and still sail home, Aluminum is a viable option.

Otherwise, I have a friend with a THICK glass hull "slug" of a truly blue water boat, and he has a massive oval bulkhead "submarine hatch", between the cabin & front 1/3rd of the boat. It also gives peace of mind!

The biggest choice in the US, will certainly be in FRP, as it represents 95% of what's available.

I've had wood and glass boats. To start I love wood boats,the way they look and even more the way they feel when you sail them. BUT wood boats don't tend to do well in tropic climates. Everyones heard of worms, how many have heard of putty bugs? I can't even haul a wood boat in Ft. Lauderdale anymore.The only do it yourself yard won't haul them. If you like to work on a boat buy wood. If you want to sail buy glass.